Dear Ministry of Justice,

Greetings, can you please help me in the interpretation of The Interpretation Act 1977?

I was curious about the writing of legislation. I was wondering if the words are to be taken literally or if legalese is practiced.

I became aware of the: "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" as rule of interpretation that states ‘including one excludes another’.

My understanding is if this applied to:
The Interpretation Act 1999
Part 5
29. New Zealand or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency.

My question is, does this mean New Zealand in legal terms, is actually The Cook Islands, Nuie, Tokelau or Ross Dependency?

Further to that:

Cook Islands Act 1915
New Zealand means the Dominion of New Zealand exclusive of the Cook Islands.

Once again, does this mean New Zealand is actually the cook islands?

You can understand my confusion, I'm clearly not a member of the law society so would really appreciate clarification on this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Blair

Dear Kauri, Ariana,

Thank you for responding to my request, it seems that the truth is obfuscated in many ways, secret societies like the law society, their BAR members and the corporate judicial system itself keep meanings and terminologies occult to the disadvantage of all citizens, legal persons and private men and women. The Freedom of Information Act seldom assists one obtain any real freedom or gain information that exposes long established state deception, however predictable responses to important requests always validate that which is suspicious and worth researching further.

Yours sincerely,

D J Blair